Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Manharjit Singh vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests on 21 October, 2025

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/MOENF/A/2024/111799

Manharjit Singh                                  .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


CPIO,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, Regional Office,
Bays No. 24-25, Sector 31A,
Chandigarh - 160030                              .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    13.10.2025
Date of Decision                    :    17.10.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    07.10.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    30.10.2023
First appeal filed on               :    06.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    08.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    16.04.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 07.10.2023 seeking the following information:

"i. Please share all the certified copy of Notifications/Amendments/Clarifications issued by the MoEF and CC with respect to its EIA Notification-2006-SO 1533(E) dated 14th Sept-

2006 linked with Building/Construction projects/Area Development projects and Township under point 8 in the Schedule (List of Projects and Activities requiring prior environmental clearance) annexed to aforementioned EIA-2006 notification.

ii. Copy of any clarification/notification/communication issued to the Regional Office of the MoEF and CC (NZ) asking for the Township and Area development Projects less than 50 Ha to undertake Environmental Clearance notification where proposed construction is more than 2000 square meters by hypothetical assumptions based on permissible FAR (Floor Area Ration) iii. Copy of any clarification/notification/communication issued to the SEAC/SEIAΑ-Punjab by Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Chandigarh vide letter no. 1-5/2018/ Miscellaneous/ Env.205 dated 15.04.2019 with regard to Township and Area development projects less than 50 Ha"

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.10.2023 stating as under:

"2 As per available office record, copy of letter is attached as Annexure 1.

3. Copy of said letter is attached as Annexure-2."

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 08.02.2024, held as under.

"1. Appellate Authority has taken a cognizance and considered the appeal.

2. CPIO was called by Appellate Authority (AA) on 08.02.2024 for hearing to present the facts. During hearing it was revealed that reply has already been sent vide letter No.7-01/RTI/2023-IRO dated 30.10.2023.

3. Appellate Authority had also scrutinized the concerned files/records.

4. The appeal is disposed off."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Dr. K. Muthamizh Selvan, Scientist E/CPIO present in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on the Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.04.2024 is available on record.

6. The Respondent stated that original RTI application has been filed by the Appellant to their Delhi office who partially transferred the same to the replying Respondent for providing the reply at point No. 2 and 3 of RTI application. Thereafter, reply for the said point has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 30.10.2023 which was further affirmed by the FAA. For point No. 1 of RTI application, he orally submitted that all relevant notifications, circulars, orders, etc. are available in the public domain and can be easily accessed from the official website of MoEFCC. Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the Respondent CPIO during hearing, as it adequately served the purpose of Appellant filing this RTI application in terms of the RTI Act.

8. Moreover, the Appellant neither appeared during hearing to contest his case nor filed any written submission to controvert the version of the replying Respondent.

9. Having observed as above, no relief can be granted in the matter.

10. Nonetheless, the Commission would advise the FAA to exercise due diligence and pass reasoned speaking order on merits with specific remarks on the reply of the CPIO in the spirit of the RTI Act instead of disposing the First Appeal with cryptic or incomplete words.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office, Bays No. 24-25, Sector 31A, Chandigarh - 160030 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)